Showing posts with label debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debt. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

On the Radio with Lynnette Kalfani-Cox

I believe it was Einstein who suggested that “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them”. And with us today, we have a very special guest who has done what many of us might think impossible, taking something as abstract as credit and money and turning it into a reality that we can all relate to.

Lynnette Khalfani-Cox is known as The Money Coach® has done more than just expose the soft-underbelly of everything financial – she has performed surgery. Her efforts as a personal finance expert, television and radio personality, and the author of numerous books, including the New York Times bestseller Zero Debt: The Ultimate Guide to Financial Freedom has created a wealth of information for those who face the incredible hurdle of mastering the income they earn. Lynnette once had $100,000 in credit card debt and in three years, did what many of us might consider impossible: paid it off.


Listen to internet radiowith
on

Monday, October 3, 2011

ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World



ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck to Paycheck World
I just published my fifth book - this time with Smashwords! And a special offer to readers of this blog, ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck-to-Paycheck World by Paul Petillo is available for a limited time (until 10.29.11) you can use this coupon code to get the ebook for half price or $1.50. The code for the coupon is UJ76Q This ebook is available across all platforms including iPad and iPhone, Amazon and Sony.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Tell Me a Lie: Retirement Planning and the High Net Worth Boomer

You would like to think that we are all truthful. But that may not be the case. Are Baby Boomers, more specifically those considered high net worth, telling a story about their retirement that isn't quite truthful?


Oscar Wilde probably said it best: "What we have to do, what at any rate it is our duty to do, is to revive the old art of Lying.” Nowhere is this resurgence in the falsehood more prevalent than when we tell a surveyor about our finances. When they look extremely bleak, we tell them they look even worse. When they look okay, we tell them they are really good. It is in our natures to tell lies considering we do it when we smile.

Evidently, a group of wealthy Baby Boomers told a survey group from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch that their retirement not only looked promising but was much better than their parent's retirement was. This is pretty lofty talk from a group that just a couple of years ago was not one bit happy with where their portfolios had gone in the wake of the financial meltdown. Now, $250,000 in investable asets is enough to warrant such retirement superlatives as "freedom" and "relaxation".

What changed? True the markets recovered over the ensuing couple of years. But I doubt that this had anything to do with it. many of these folks, like all age and wealth groups did, panicked at the sudden rebalancing of their portfolios by market forces. Unaccustomed to an all-inclusive debacle, many moved into much more conservative type investments and in the process, created their own mini-bubble in the bond market.

The rest of us moved into target date funds, a sketchy hybrid of funds designed to rebalance our aggressive natures for us. If you are older, the fund you plopped the remaining balance of your 401(k) is close to your age - so you too may have benefited from the updraft of conservatively invested enthusiasm. I wrote about this relationship with the bond market a couple of days ago suggesting that if their isn't a bubble in the bond market, it is because it won't pop when it reaches the end of its run; it'll hiss itself into normalcy.

It may be that this group has a better restructuring plan in place or they are simply lying to themselves - and the surveyors. Consider this: $250,000 in investable assets was consider the borderline between the rest of us schmucks and the high-net worth individual. I'm sure that this number is not even close to the actual investable assets these people had. It is our carrot.

One thing that stands out with the group surveyed is the change in attitude about what retirement is. They mostly believe working in retirement is a way to stay physically and mentally engaged. And for many, it is. For those with less than $250,000 in investable assets, it often isn't the case.

But these high-net worth folks worry about the same things you do: the cost of health care, the cost of children still living at home and that there portfolios, no matter how well managed, might not be enough. So they smile when they say they have it better than their parents and do so while lying about how much better.

And these high-net worth folks are not short on advice, even if they didn't take their own. Get a financial adviser as early as possible, they suggest and of course start early. Good pieces of hindsight advice that they were told as they began their working careers - and didn't follow.

About this advice to use financial advisers earlier. Then there was a survey conducted in 2006, when things were going great: housing values were appreciating, the markets were humming along, and early retirement was well within reach or it was assumed to be. And the results show a complete turnaround in thinking from then to now.

Back then - keep in mind these were the good times - another survey was published: In it, the following: "According to a new MyWay Investment Advisors (MWIA - an independent financial planning and investment advisory firm) survey, 98% of respondents would change the way they work with their advisor with 43% saying they wanted to change the amount they paid for the financial advice and services. This compares to only 13% of advisors who would look to improve how they currently operate, including pricing for clients.. The survey focused on how individuals would like to be treated by their financial advisor or investment professional and how they would like to pay for those services.

"The survey targeted the individuals with annual incomes greater than $75,000 and $150,000 to $600,000 in invested assets, including 401Ks. A duplicate survey was sent to financial planners, investment managers, insurance sales people and other financial industry professionals to compare responses." Why has this advice changed? Pricing and the way pricing is structured has evolved. Yet the higher the net worth, no matter what you pay, you pay more than you should.

So which is the truth? Are they happy now or were they happy then? The most telling piece of info coming from that survey: "When it comes to financial advice, however, financial advisors isn't where most of those surveyed go for information. Only 27% utilize financial advisors while over half (56%) get advice from a friend, publications or on their own.

"Of those that have a financial advisor, only 18% are happy with him or her. a whopping 56% say they are dissatisfied and 23% still have not made a decision."

This means one thing. We can no longer look to those we consider net-worth wealthy for guidance in how to become net-worth wealthy ourselves. Retirement has become a reality and an illusion. It is something we want and fear, something we strive for and are repelled by, something that is both possible and impossible. Yes it is a conundrum.

But it is your puzzle to figure out. And the simplest way to do that is figure out if you are willing to live on less than you have now. You don't need a financial adviser to tell you that you probably haven't invested enough. You know that you are probably wrangling more debt that you would like. You know that your contribution to your 401(k) is les than it should be. And you know that your goals concerning retirement are lofty than they are on paper.

Your balance sheet needs to be revisited and often. You need to double your 401(k) contribution now, no matter what age you are. There are numerous, almost painless ways of doing this including channeling the tax relief on your Social Security payroll tax (2% for the next two years) or simply increasing your contribution by 1% for every month of the upcoming year. You have the pieces to solve this puzzle. It all depends on how much you want to lie. The rich can. So can you.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

Friday, May 9, 2008

Retirement Planning - A is for Asset Allocation

Today, we begin a look at the alphabet soup that has become investing and more importantly, retirement planning. For most people, the concept of saving is already understood, the downside effects of having debt has been completely drilled in - from every angle imaginable, and the importance of a retirement plan or planning strategy is absolutely necessary to prevent financial disaster when we hit or sixties or seventies.

A is for Asset Allocation


When there is market turmoil, one of the first things you should examine is how well you have allocated the assets in your retirement portfolio. This is no easy task.

If your 401(k) was properly allocated a year ago, before the economy slowed down, with mutual funds that were focused on growing your money and with your risk tolerance in mind, you will be fine. Fundamentally, not that much has changed.

Smart investors know they need to give their portfolios twelve months to fully utilize the plan. History has shown that with time, many of the imbalances that have a stranglehold on the markets will loosen their grip and things will return to normal.

Hold tight, time will come to the rescue.

What is asset allocation?


How those assets are positioned in your retirement portfolio however is a different matter.

In a retirement plan, asset allocation takes on a different meaning. In your portfolio, you should have basket of mutual funds that focus on different parts of the market. This method of investing protects you from swings in the market that is often specific to one group of investments. The markets rarely fail altogether.

The most recent example of this happened in early 2008 when the stocks of banks and other financial institutions began to falter. The most famous was the failure of technology stocks in 2000. Had you not allocated your assets properly, you would have felt a greater loss than the market as a whole did. Asset allocation protects you from this.

The Right Mix


In order for asset allocation to work, you need to determine two things: your age and your risk tolerance. Age is not so much a reference to how old you are but how far off in the distant or near future your retirement is.

Your risk tolerance is a reference to how much of your investments you are willing to put to the test.

If you are in your twenties, it is generally assumed that you should be the most tolerant of risk, investing in growth mutual funds and able to overcome any short-term problems.

Allocation assets becomes much more important once you reach forty, beginning to temper your risk and protect some of your assets. By age sixty, you should be investing a conservative mix of stocks and bonds.

How to get the Right Allocation


Perhaps the simplest way: invest in target funds that save for a future retirement date. These types of funds gradually change your assets over the years, essentially re-allocating for you.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Retirement Planning and Your Personal Finance Skills, Part Three

Personal Financial Literacy Quiz:




(Answers and explanations by me are at the bottom of the page)

21. Matt has a good job on the production line of a factory in his home town. During the past year or two, the state in which Matt lives has been raising taxes on its businesses to the point where they are much higher than in neighboring states. What effect is this likely to have on Matt's job?

    a.) Higher business taxes will cause more businesses to move into Matt's state, raising wages.

    b.) Higher business taxes can't have any effect on Matt's job.

    c.) Matt's company may consider moving to a lower-tax state, threatening Matt's job.

    d.) He is likely to get a large raise to offset the effect of higher taxes.


22. If you have caused an accident, which type of automobile insurance would cover damage to your own car?

    a.) Comprehensive.

    b.) Liability.

    c.) Term.

    d.) Collision.


23. Scott and Eric are young men. Each has a good credit history. They work at the same company and make approximately the same salary. Scott has borrowed $6,000 to take a foreign vacation. Eric has borrowed $6,000 to buy a car. Who is likely to pay the lowest finance charge?

    a.) Eric will pay less because the car is collateral for the loan.

    b.) They will both pay the same because the rate is set by law.

    c.) Scott will pay less because people who travel overseas are better risks.

    d.) They will both pay the same because they have almost identical financial backgrounds.


24. If you went to college and earned a four-year degree, how much more money could you expect to earn than if you only had a high school diploma?

    a.) About 10 times as much.

    b.) No more; I would make about the same either way.


    c.) A little more; about 20% more.

    d.) A lot more; about 70% more.


25. Many savings programs are protected by the Federal government against loss. Which of the following is not?

    a.) A U.S. Savings Bond.

    b.) A certificate of deposit at the bank.

    c.) A bond issued by one of the 50 States.

    d.) A U. S. Treasury Bond.



26. If each of the following persons had the same amount of take home pay, who would need the greatest amount of life insurance?

    a.) An elderly retired man, with a wife who is also retired.

    b.) A young married man without children.

    c.) A young single woman with two young children.

    d.) A young single woman without children.


27. Which of the following instruments is NOT typically associated with spending?

    a.) Debit card.

    b.) Certificate of deposit.

    c.) Cash.

    d.) Credit card.




28. Which of the following credit card users is likely to pay the GREATEST dollar amount in finance charges per year, if they all charge the same amount per year on their cards?

    a.) Jessica, who pays at least the minimum amount each month and more, when she has the money.

    b.) Vera, who generally pays off her credit card in full but, occasionally, will pay the minimum when she is short of cash

    c.) Megan, who always pays off her credit card bill in full shortly after she receives it

    d.) Erin, who only pays the minimum amount each month.


29. Which of the following statements is true?

    a.) Banks and other lenders share the credit history of their borrowers with each other and are likely to know of any loan payments that you have missed.

    b.) People have so many loans it is very unlikely that one bank will know your history with another bank

    c.) Your bad loan payment record with one bank will not be considered if you apply to another bank for a loan.

    d.) If you missed a payment more than 2 years ago, it cannot be considered in a loan decision.


30. Dan must borrow $12,000 to complete his college education. Which of the following would NOT be likely to reduce the finance charge rate?

    a.) If he went to a state college rather than a private college.

    b.) If his parents cosigned the loan.

    c.) If his parents took out an additional mortgage on their house for the loan.

    d.) If the loan was insured by the Federal Government.


31. If you had a savings account at a bank, which of the following would be correct concerning the interest that you would earn on this account?

    a.) Earnings from savings account interest may not be taxed.

    b.) Income tax may be charged on the interest if your income is high enough.


    c.) Sales tax may be charged on the interest that you earn.

    d.) You cannot earn interest until you pass your 18th birthday.




ANSWERS: 21) c; 22) d; 23)a; 24)d; 25)c 26) c; 27) b; 28) d; 29) a; 30) a; 31) b

Part One

Part Two

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Retirement Planning and the College Loan

Retirement Planning and the College Loan



There are basically three types of college loans: the one you do not have, the one you are paying for or the one you are paying for your children.

I write the following in the book: "Yet the psychology of debt assumes that it (and this instance we are speaking about your ability to repay your collegiate debt) will soon turn bad."

“Life is a maze….” Cyril Connolly, 1944


There was a time in the not-so-distant past when college graduates and those who chose to enter into the workforce could expect to earn similar incomes. Thirty years have passed and, as we all know (or assume) this is no longer the case. In fact, when those two post-high school incomes met along that timeline in 1975, college was much cheaper.

According to the College Board, who recently stepped away from the loan business, the average student will leave college with about $20,000 of debt. (Realistically, the student who fully finances her or his education will often have as much as ten thousand dollars of additional debt above and beyond the cost of classes.) And that is just for undergraduate public school completed in four years. Many students extend their college years beyond this, attending graduate school and adding another $30-40,000 in loans.

Want to find out how much you are likely to make with that college education? Salary.com has compiled a list of entry-level incomes for a wide variety of careers.

How does college play itself out in your retirement plan? There are three basic concepts to understand.

The first: A thirty thousand dollar loan can quickly turn itself upside down if the student does not pay it off early. Letting it languish for the full ten-year payback period will add as much as a third more to the cost of the education.

Second: Because the student is not likely to prioritize those loan payments, they will be much more prone to roll the debt over into some sort of longer termed consolidation loan, extending the period of payback and because of that, paying additional interest charges, fees for loan origination and in the process, learn one of life's most frequently taught lesson – debt overload. Once this happens, and if the post-college income generated from those years racking up that debt fails to match the debt, young people just starting out will be well behind the best years for saving.

Third: Parents shouldn't pay. Okay, middle class parents shouldn't pay. Diverting money to your child’s education seems noble enough and might even make you feel better but it doesn’t work if you are not using that money for your own retirement.

I have suggested that a family with a household income of less that $80,000 devote any money to growing their child. Lessons, activities, sports and travel all eat up enormous amounts of cash from the average budget. But it will produce a much better (and more attractive, at least from a collegiate perspective) citizen/student. And that child is more likely to obtain scholarships and grant money because of it.

Parents at this income level have few good opportunities to save for their own retirements. Passing up even so much as single dollar directed towards a savings plan for those later years would be catastrophic.

Incomes above that amount will not be in much better shape to save for college but they will feel the pressure of their peer group to do so. With the recent credit crunch revealing some cracks in the accounting of many households who have kept their eye on prizes they could ill afford, saving for college may add to an already strained budget.

Retirement planning rule of thumb: If your total household debt exceeds 70%, you should focus on your future and not that of your child(ren). That debt will afford them better borrowing opportunities but, on the other hand, that same debt will be creating a negative momentum for your own future.

Saturday, August 4, 2007

Retirement Planning and Debt: Depreciation

Retirement Planning and Debt: Depreciation

How often have you heard someone say that as soon as you drive a car off the lot, it is no longer worth what you paid? There is a lot of truth to the statement but some of it is exaggerated. Yes, it does lose value but not as dramatically as you might think – at least in those initial moments anyway.

Depreciation happens to things with a fixed life span. We know that cars do not last forever. While they aren’t exactly disposable, many vehicles have a fixed life from an accounting point of view.



While you can have an effect on that life span – unusually hard driving might create more wear and tear on a car than accounting calls “normal”, generally speaking, depreciation allows for a systematic lessening of the value of the property over the course of time. In the case of cars, five years is considered by many to be the best number to use.

Another term you may have heard of – GAAP or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is the method used to adjust the book value of the asset downward in a systematic way. When you buy an asset such as a car, the price you pay is considered the historic value. The book value is considered a contra asset account, each entry lowering the price of the asset.

Autos use straight-line depreciation. This assumes two things. The first is the historic value; the second is referred to as the salvage value. As a math sentence, it would like this:
Cost of the car ÷the salvage value = the annual straight-line depreciation.


In the book, we look at the difficulties of getting you right side up in an upside down car loan. To be “upside down” suggests a car loan that continues long after the depreciation that as brought the car’s value to zero.

One of the key factors in such a mistake is the attraction of “the right price”. Too often we are drawn by the amount of the monthly payment and not the cost of financing the purchase. Had we calculated the debt service (the amount of interest paid) and the depreciation (how much the car will be worth at a given point in time) against the balance owed, we might have had second thoughts about a loan that lasts longer than five.

For instance, which would you find more alluring: a five year loan on a car worth $30,000 at 6% would cost you $579.98 or a seven year loan – not unheard of these days at the same interest rate and a payment of $438.26? Admit it. The lesser of the two would be the most attractive option.

Key to keeping this happening is buying a car you can afford – not the car you want and use the money saved to finance that under-funded retirement.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Retirement Planning and Debt: Liquidity

Retirement Planning and Debt: Liquidity


No one can downplay the importance of debt in your financial plan. While I am guilty for frequently mentioning the concept as a negative influence on your plan, we are besieged with information offering us a contrary view.

We are encouraged to keep the economy going by spending. Savings on the other hand, is actually portrayed as a negative influence. An economy can slow the flow of goods if consumers keep their cash close.


While this may be true, it is overspending or buying on credit that has propelled these markets on a global scale. And that movement is based on the availability of money.



What motivates equity markets is liquidity. This is a financial terms that in its simplest form refers to the availability of cash to borrow. Let me explain how liquidity works, often differently depending on where and who you are.


On a corporate level, liquidity can be incredibly deceiving. It acts as a reward for savvy business acumen. And because of so many people are using their skills to find this excess capital where little to none exists, we have these stock market levels (over the month of July, the DJIA hit 14,000, then gyrated wildly downward in fits and starts losing five percent of its value).



Liquidity in its purest form comes from the banking system. The Federal Reserve Board fixes the overnight short-term interest rates for the best borrowers. When it does this, it is suggesting a rate at which it believes the marketplace has just enough cash at the right price to keep the corporate engines fueled. That rate is then passed on to each subsequent lender, who increases the rate in small increments right on down the line.


This gives the average borrower like you and I the impression that the Fed controls the economy with each pull of its purse strings. And you would be right, to a degree. The flip side of making money inexpensive to borrow is having enough available in adequate quantities to those willing to pay the price. But liquidity offers business and consumers different opportunities but similar punishments.

In order for the borrower to qualify for a sizable loan, whether it be business or consumer related they often need to have some sort of underlying asset that they are willing to “put on the line” for the amount of money they seek. With business, it is often money borrowed for reinvestment in production or to expand a product line. With the consumer, it is often their largest asset: their home.

Most of the time this borrowing is at the heart of how a business grows, tapping inexpensive money that gives them additional competitive opportunities.

Each asset the company owns acts as collateral. But what happens when the borrower wants money not for the usual and traditional purpose of expanding the business but to reinvest it? On the surface, it creates an illusion of economic health.


A business can borrow cash to buy back its own stock. The net effect of such a maneuver suggests two things: the company thinks its stock is fairly valued and is taking some of it off the table, making it unavailable for buyers and secondly, it believes that the markets will reward just such an action by increasing the share price. But what happens when the interest rates (called debt service) rise faster that the return on the stock? Nothing until someone begins to realize that this whole debt structure might be nothing more than a house of cards.

The housing analogy is not accidental. For well over three years, I have wondered how consumers would react if their ability to extract money from their homes dried up. For over two years I have been wondering what would happen if all of those creative mortgages, the ones done with adjustable rates and fancy, no-documentation paperwork, became too burdensome for the borrower.

As money becomes too expensive to borrow, opportunities to make money in market places like stocks begin to seem risky and after they calculate the debt service, not too affordable. Businesses, instead of growing and creating new markets find themselves facing the possibility that they may just have painted themselves into a corner.


Consumers, no longer feeling as though the cost of borrowing is worth it, will spend less. This of course has a domino effect disrupting economic growth.

That is the simple explanation. There are global forces at work as well but these will only have an effect on you if your liquidity has dried up. With debt, liquidity is based on your ability to borrow and pay the cost of that transaction and, most importantly, you feel as though the risk and the cost are worthwhile.

If you have no debt, your liquidity is based on your ability to tap cash when you need it. In the book, I fall back on the old stand-by, the emergency account as the base for a good retirement plan. Creating just such an account allows you to have more than just enough money to get you by during times of income disruptions, it gives you peace of mind knowing that the money comes without a cost if you need it and you were able to save it.

It also has the effect of immunizing you from any economic fallout as a result of nefarious corporate and marketplace shenanigans or because other consumers over-extended themselves in unwieldy loans.